Bullets Forever: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: College Football Preseason Top 25 Rankings

Wizards have themselves a real pro in Kirk Hinrich

Within minutes of Kirk Hinrich's press conference introducing him as a member of the Wizards, it became clear why team president Ernie Grunfeld decided to acquire him in a trade last month.  

For one, Grunfeld has, quite literally, coveted Hinrich since Hinrich entered the league.  The Wizards president admitted that he scouted Hinrich extensively prior to the 2003 draft, when Grunfeld was still with the Bucks, and had him on his radar for his team's eighth pick.  The Bulls ultimately selected Hinrich one pick before Milwaukee, but Grunfeld said today that if Hinrich had slipped, "it's safe to say" that the Bucks would have picked him.

For another, though, there's something about the way Hinrich seems to carry himself that could be a real asset to this team.  Obviously, I'm getting this sense merely from a press conference, and it remains to be seen what happens once actual basketball is played.  But I was very impressed with the way Hinrich answered questions.  He seemed pretty shy, and does not seem like the kind of guy who likes hearing himself talk.  In other words, he seemed like a guy who just wanted to play basketball.  A professional, if you will.

"He's had an outstanding career.  He brings it every night, he's a pro, he works very hard, he competes and he's very versatile," Grunfeld said.  "Those are the kind of players we're looking for."

Hinrich's demeanor reminded me of something I wrote back during the year.  When Antawn Jamison left for Cleveland, I wrote this post discussing what I felt was the difference between being a leader and being a pro.  Jamison was a pro, but he was miscast as a leader because he tended to get frustrated when people didn't listen to him.  The Wizards, at the time, had pros (Caron Butler, Jamison, Darius Songaila, Mike Miller, Randy Foye, etc.), but needed a leader, and Jamison wasn't the right guy.  

But now, the tables have been turned.  The Wizards have a leader, and his name is John Wall.  It's pros that they need who will set a good example and shun the spotlight.  Kirk Hinrich provides that.

You saw that on display whenever Hinrich was asked about the "mentoring" role he took with Derrick Rose, who, like Wall, was a fellow No. 1 overall pick in 2008.  Hinrich seemed a bit embarrassed by the question and immediately deflected credit away from himself.  

"When Derrick [Rose] came to the Bulls, I really feel like I got too much credit for [mentoring him].  He's just very good," Hinrich said, sighing before answering the question.

He added that if he did lead, it was mostly "by example," though he did sometimes talk to Rose and be more vocal when necessary.  But when asked the same question after the press conference, Hinrich again deflected praise.

"I wouldn't say I was hands-off; I worked with him a lot. But everyone's like 'Oh, you mentored Derrick Rose,' and I feel like I got way too much credit for that," Hinrich said, smiling.  "I always was talking to him and things like that, but he was very good."

One reporter tried one more time to get Hinrich to elaborate, asking what kinds of things he hopes to "impress" on Wall that he may have impressed on Rose as a rookie. Hinrich's response was simply to say that he doesn't know until he interacts with Wall more. 

Deflecting credit and doing his work away from the cameras? That's one sign of being a real pro. That's the quality of Hinrich that Grunfeld must have seen when deciding to trade for him, and it's a quality that I think will ultimately help the team in some capacity going forward.

(More below the jump)

Star-divide

A couple other quick notes, and a follow-up point about Hinrich's salary:

 

  • Hinirch admitted that he is more "comfortable" playing point guard and that it will be his "challenge" in training camp to figure out how he can best help this club. However, he also added that he is "definitely capable" of playing both guard positions.
  • Hinrich said he was "blindsided" by the trade in June, even though he admitted his name has come up in many trade rumors recently, but is ready and excited for a "fresh start" on his career.  In fact, he used the words "fresh start" at three different points during the proceedings. 
  • Grunfeld opened the proceedings with these remarks.  "When you build, you also need some veterans, some leaders.  Some players that have been through the wars before, and Kurt is definitely one of those players."  I'm guessing the "Kurt" was an accidental slip, because he corrected himself whenever referring to Hinrich's name again.  But it was still somewhat amusing to hear, because former Bulls coach Vinny Del Negro was notorious for calling Hinrich "Kurt" in press conferences last year.
  • Grunfeld also said that Hinrich might play some small forward next year. "Occasionally, Kurt can also play some small forward, especially from the defensive standpoint," he said.  Before you scoff, keep in mind that Hinrich did a nice job defending Paul Pierce for short stretches during the 2009 Playoffs. 
  • Speaking of defense, here's what Hinrich said when asked where his defensve mentality comes from.  "Growing up, I loved to score, but more than anything, I hated to be scored on.  When I got into the league, I realized that's how you win.  All these teams that win NBA Championships are very good defensively and all around good teams."
  • Hinrich called Gilbert Arenas one of the best players in the league, and added that he is "a good kid." I thought that was an interesting choice of words.
  • Hinrich even uttered the "P" word at one point during the proceedings. "Whenever you get the number one pick, and you have John [Wall] and a young cast around him, there's a sense that you're rebuilding.  But I feel like, when you have the talent, play the right way in the system and play hard every night, I think we can surprise a lot of people."
That's about all you need to know about today.  Still, my guess is many of you are nodding along and saying "well, yeah, we knew this, but what about that contract?"  Hinrich isn't coming as cheap as perhaps many of us would have liked, as he's owed $9 million next year and $8 million in 2011/12. However, in thinking more about the way the Wizards have gone about things this summer, Hinrich's deal really isn't the albatross I think many of us thought it would be. Kyle Weidie talked a little about this on Truth About It  last month, but I want to examine things further now that it appears most of the Wizards' free-agent shuffling is over.

Ultimately, I don't think the $9 million this season was really ever an issue.  The Wizards were not going to be major free-agent players this summer anyway, so instead, they used their cap space to take on an asset (the 17th pick).  Based on where the franchise was at, asset accumulation is the name of the game, and the Wizards accumulated an asset while keeping their payroll low.  They probably could not have gotten any of the big-name free agents, and overpaying for a second-tier player at this early stage of the game is exactly what gets your team stuck in neutral.

The $8 million in 2011/12 was a bit more problematic at the time.  But now that we've had a few weeks of summer to see how Grunfeld has decided to manage his team, that number really isn't a big deal at all.  The Wizards entered the summer with only six players under contract (five without Quinton Ross).  They drafted four and added Hinrich, making 11. To fill out the roster, they took on players for just one season (Yi Jianlian and Hilton Armstrong), and my educated guess (again, just a guess) is they're looking to do the same with Cartier Martin and his qualifying offer. Therefore, Hinrich is the only non-draft pick acquired this summer that has a long-term contract of any kind, and it's just for one more season.

But you're probably saying "it's still a needless $8 million expense, so why do it?"  After looking at the Wizards' payroll situation a bit more, it makes more sense.  Technically, the Wizards have $53.7 million committed to 11 players: Arenas, Andray Blatche, Hinrich, Wall, Kevin Seraphin, JaVale McGee, Trevor Booker,  Hamady Ndiaye, Yi Jianlian, Nick Young and Al Thornton.  That puts them close to this year's $58 million salary cap, and with a lockout looming, that cap number could very well go down.  However, there's a way around this, and that is to renounce the qualifying offers for Yi, Young and Thornton.  Doing that clears away $13,013,770 from the Wizards' 2011/12 cap number, putting them back at $40.7 million, where they'll retain their flexibility.  They could use that space to make a run at Carmelo Anthony, or they could once again execute these kind of deals where they end up with a veteran on a short-term contract and a pick.  Hell, they could even sit on that money, buy draft picks to fill out the roster (using money they've received from Chicago and New Jersey) and be home free if the post-lockout cap policies fundamentally alter the financial state of the league.

In a way, that looks like trading one year of Hinrich for all three of Young, Thornton and Yi, but that's not really true.  Even if you say goodbye to two of those guys, you still end up using about the same amount of money as if you would have by not taking on Hinrich.  In addition, I think we can safely say that Young and Thornton's places in this team's future were already under serious consideration before this season (to say nothing of Yi, who is very much in the "take a one-year flyer" mode).  If those guys don't cut it next year, you might as well wash your hands of them a year early and take the cap flexibility anyway.  

Bottom line: in the end, there are ways to mitigate Hinrich's $8 million on the team's cap next year, from a team management perspective.  It's important to note that this might not have been true if Grunfeld pursued a different free agency strategy.  I think it's very telling that the Wizards literally have not signed a single player, no matter how young or cheap or talented, to a contract beyond 2011. Grunfeld seems to have decided that he'd rather have Hinrich on board for one more year and $8 million extra for that year than Josh Childress for four more years and $6 million extra per year, or even Dorrell Wright for two more years and $4 million extra per year.  I'm not sure that's the decision I would have personally made, but it's certainly a justifiable course of action.  As long as the Wizards are building a young core through the draft, they might as well do everything possible to help that young core specifically breathe.  A long-term free agent signing, even one that was cheap, may not have been the appropriate thing to take on at this time.

Instead, Grunfeld chose Hinrich and his professionalism for one extra year.  I can certainly see, based on today, why he reached that conclusion. 

1 recs  |  Comment 359 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

dude

Yo mike, I met you at the draft and we were talking about this, and at first you said you didn’t like this trade cause of the money issue. I’m glad to see you’ve come around (or so it seems)…seeing all his good qualities. Come to think about it, we might have the best backup PG in the league. Maybe Goran Dragic, but Kirk is up there, can’t think of too many others off the top of my head.

by macattack777 on Jul 26, 2010 11:26 PM EDT reply actions  

Good stuff

Great analysis of Hinrich and I particularly enjoyed your depiction of Jamison as a pro, but not a leader. Captain Jamison’s frustration with and consistently negative treatment of the “young guys” was a key factor in the lack of their development. How long did it take for Blatche to bust out once Jamison was gone? Yeah, about 2 seconds.

Your analysis of the Hinrich cap hit is right on the mark, but some of us were making that point on draft night while the rest of the lynch mob was ready to march to Ernie Grunfeld’s front lawn. This is not new analysis, it’s just that everyone disagreed at that time.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 26, 2010 11:26 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

to be fair

Jamison was the more consistent producer, consummate pro and team player while Blatche was trying to rewrite the nachos eaten before the game record books. If Jamison had truly hurt Blatche’s development he wouldn’t have been able to bust out when given the playing time would he?

by Jheiser3 on Jul 27, 2010 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

no, just the opposite

Blatche wasn’t focused on the game because Jamison kept telling him how we wasn’t good enough, wasn’t trying hard enough.

Negative reinforcement is not leadership. You aren’t likely to do good work if your boss keeps telling you nothing is ever good enough.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 27, 2010 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

The kid has been focused on jump shots and buckets since he got into the league, to the point he lamented not getting credit for a ball he put into his own basket. But its someone else’s fault (isn’t it always) that his arms still look like that of a 16 year old girl.

Where is this coming from? When did Jamison tell him he wasn’t good enough? While he was eating a plate of nachos before the game? Sounds like you’re just making it up to justify Blatche slacking on his responsibilities.

by Jheiser3 on Jul 27, 2010 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Jamison is a net negative for a team

he takes bad shots, and gets garbage rebounds. He never gets the tough ones and is a terrible defensive liability at any position

Aim for the head baby Jesus

by Doncosmic on Jul 27, 2010 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

In that case...

…I’d like to see Javale grab some garbage defensive rebounds…

We're from the city with the highest murder rate in the country. Why WOULDN'T they call us the Bullets?

by Bullet Nation in Exile on Jul 28, 2010 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

Jamison is/was a very good rebounder

He got PLENTY of tough rebounds. By being smarter than his opponent.

I agree he took bad shots here, but he was asked to take shots. That was his role. Iso’s on the elbow, stretch the floor with 3’s, and cuts to the basket.

Now defense is where we agree wholeheartedly.

by jones-y on Jul 28, 2010 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

AJ got to rebounds faster than his opponents. He got a lot of rebounds because he could get back up for a second jump so fast.

by MR on Jul 28, 2010 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

He often got there faster by using his brain. He rebounded better than what his physical limitations (height and athleticism) should have allowed.

by jones-y on Jul 28, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

RIght

Had Jamison encouraged him he might have had a better attitude. Jamison’s “leadership” didn’t work.

By all accounts Blatche got real serious the very day Jamison left. The proof is in the pudding.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

You completely made that up.
By all accounts Blatche got real serious the very day Jamison left.

Please back this up.

Wasn’t 7DayDray invented BEFORE AJ left? Wasn’t the benching incident AFTER AJ left?

by MR on Jul 28, 2010 7:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

Nope. Straight from the horse's mouth...
"I tried to harp on him from day one, about professionalism and preparing yourself to be successful, and that starts, not when you step in the gym, but prior to that. And that’s lifting weights, taking care of your body, preparing your body, understanding scouting reports and knowing what they are going to do to you," Saunders said. "I think prior, when we had Caron and Antawn, he never really took that to heart. ‘It really doesn’t matter what I do.’ When those guys left, I think he understood. All of a sudden he’s lifting more. He’s quiet in the locker room. And all of a sudden his game has coincided with improving with that.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/wizardsinsider/2010/03/blatche-on-a-ridiculous-roll.html

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

And to further clarify....

It was Jamison’s treating Blatche like a kid brother who he’d beat up no matter what that was the problem. As Flip said, paraphrasing Dray, “It doesn’t really matter what I do”….

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

that's on blatche

it doesn’t matter what i do (which is BS), so i just won’t bother lifting weights or training or eating right or not picking up hookers or renewing my license.

yeah, that sure is all AJ’s fault.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Have you never had/seen an overly negative boss?

Blatche was working hard throughout the summer. Jamison always told him it wasn’t good enough.

Per Flip Saunders, Blatche got more serious the day Jamison left. Proof is in the pudding.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's funny the stuff that gets made up around here sometimes

That quote does not support the argument that AJ’s attitude toward Blatche stunted him. Why are you blaming all of it on Jamison? Clearly it’s not about him, since Butler is mentioned right alongside.

What that quote means is that Blatche didn’t take himself seriously until he was forced to. I don’t see how that’s Jamison’s fault.

by MR on Jul 28, 2010 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

There is room for fault on both sides

The guys who come in and get it from day 1 and need nothing from an org or teammates to achieve greatness are wonderful.

There are also plenty of guys who could do much better more quickly if handled the right way. And there are guys who never get it, no matter what a team does.

I don’t really see it as a casting blame kind of thing. But I do see the possibility that, in this case, the way the vets interacted with the kids did not serve to motivate the kids as much as a different style might have. Vets fault? I guess that depends on what you see as the appropriate role for a vet. It’s a pragmatic issue for the team, finding the best way to win. If you have a coach/culture that is demanding and doesn’t molly-coddle rookies, GMs should learn not to draft young guys that need that handling. On the other hand, if you do end up with a kid who responds better to kudos than tough love, or whatever their deal is, it would behoove the team to at least try something different to reach them.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly

The point is Jamison’s “leadership” didn’t help, it hurt. And when you get the $50M contract and the title of Captain, you can’t do that.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Holy Cow

wjb just wrote an entire post about team/coach/GM culture and all you see is “blame Jamison”.

by MR on Jul 28, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes

and as team captain, he’s a main culprit. Not the only, but the main culprit.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

blatche is talented

no doubt. but i don’t understand trying to blame others for his shortcomings. this is a guy, right now, who is claiming that he doesn’t know how or when he broke his foot. (he also refused to go into a game well after AJ and CB were out the door)

he is a good basketball player yes, but character-wise, he’s got a lot of baggage, and i really think it’s nonsense to blame it on AJ and CB. why not blame those two for gil’s behavior while we’re at it?

disliking those guys is one thing – they were flawed players – but this is another

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't dislike those guys at all

I really admire Jamison and the way he handles himself. And I like Caron’s personality for the most part. I’m not saying they are to blame at all. I’m suggesting that maybe a different way of interacting with him would have brought out more of the good and less of the bad. I see it as less a blame issue and more a meshing personalities issue – Jamison’s style would have been perfect for some other guys, and I’m sure he felt like he was doing his best possible to get through.

And personally, I tend to greatly prefer the young players who come in with a great work ethic. I just also think that when a team chooses to draft a kid who doesn’t fit that profile, they should plan on figuring out how to get the best out of that kid.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

my comment was actually directed to JJ

i’m glad you’re not placing blame on AJ and CB. i’m sure there were things they could have done better, that will always be the case in any situation. and i’m sure there were others besides AJ trying to get through to blatche who were also failing.

the fact that we’re lucky that AB is even alive at this point… and all his various legal transgressions…

AB clearly has had character and maturity issues, serious ones. to discount how that might have affected his play on the court and his slow developement, and instead pin it pretty much entirely on AJ and the organization – i’m sorry, it’s laughable. i don’t know why i’m even taking the time to write up an argument about it.

in fact, it is truly remarkable the patience the organization has had with the guy. hopefully it pays off.

and if it doesn’t, i suppose we can always choose to live in bizarro world and blame antawn jamison

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Lucky for Jamison

There’s Kirk to blame now. ;)

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

LOL

sadly, i predict this will actually happen.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Actually, it's quite clear

As a “leader”, it’s your job to pick up the play of those around you. Jamison did the opposite.

And nothing was made up, it was a direct quote from Flip Saunders.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

My conclusion is

when Jamison left, Blatche’s attitude and game picked up. And Flip’s quote would seem to support that conclusion.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

please take the time to explain then

the incident where flip asked blatche to sub into the game and blatche refused?

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't have an explanation for it

and both termed it a misunderstanding. It very well may have been Blatche’s fault and probably was.

But I think you would be making a difficult argument in suggesting that Blatche’s maturity and game did not take a considerable turn for the better the day Jamison left.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

"i don't have an explanation for it"

that’s a first.

game, yeah. but it was improving before jamison left too.

here’s the thing about his maturity, it has improved, a lot. yet, if we’re going to quote flip saunders, after that substitution incident he said “i have never been so disappointed with a player”.

now, if we’re still at that point AFTER AJ has left, this makes it a much more difficult argument to pin blatche’s issues on AJ. in fact, blatche has made it rather EASY to argue that he’s been the problem all along, since we still see bad behavior even in the face of a changed regime.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Flip's quote probably had more to do

with AB finally having a starting spot. He worked harder because he knew he was going to be starting every night and it was hard for him to saty motivated when he knew he was stuck behing AJ and to a lesser extent CB.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

That certainly seems to be what Flip is saying

unless you want to judge everything through one lens that colors everything you see

by MR on Jul 28, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Everyone

was sayng that he worked hard the off season that flip came in. As someone prvious said, that is how he got the nick name 7 day dray. But Dray also credited Jamison with helping him learn professionalism. It may have taken him a bit but remember, he did jump out of h.s. Same could have been said about Jermain O’Neal

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hinrich is an average guard at best

Pro okay; but 6’ 3’ and not terribly atheletic. $8M for a back-up. Why not a young athletic SF who can grow with Wall, Blatche and McGee?

In EG, we trust. NOT!

by Izman on Jul 26, 2010 11:35 PM EDT reply actions  

Right...

We can trade for a Kirk Hinrich, but we can’t sign a good SF. Ernie needs to go….what is that email address where we can email Leonsis???

by ATLredskin on Jul 26, 2010 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

There weren't any available

At least not without overpaying. Dorrell Wright was the best available, but he’s someone who looks like a career fifth option or bench player and he’s not an elite defender. We need a great small forward going forward, but we can draft one next year or sign one the next time we have a lot of cap space.

Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/TheRealTPruitt

by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 27, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions  

think it was thewashwiz@aol.com

But I won’t be using it. Who exactly would you suggest for that SF?

We're from the city with the highest murder rate in the country. Why WOULDN'T they call us the Bullets?

by Bullet Nation in Exile on Jul 28, 2010 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

Missed change ernie

While i think hinrich is better than average for a backup i agree with your ‘young sf’ remark.

Even before the draft Ernie stated that they wanted to build through the draft and that we needed toughness, a (defensive) big(s) and a 3 this offseason aswell as some veteran experience to go with that. He also said he wanted to add 1 or 2 draft picks to do this.

Therefore i hoped that they would get the easy pick at 11 from the hornets by taking 2 bad contracts (mo pete, songalia) and pick either patterson or aldrich. Instead thunder took it for only mo pete and the hornets are stil over the cap…

 But when they moved up to 17 i was exited about adding hinrich for the veteran need and hoping they would get damion james. Hes tough strong and can play both 3 and 4.

The 23 pick was to expencive because it cost us both 30 and 35…. we could have bought the 25 pick from the grizlies for cash…and picked local wing player and defensive stud pondexter and stil pick whiteside, alabi or or booker and ndiaye with 30 and 35. Only whiteside was projected to go in the first round.

A lost change imo to collect a young core at once to add to AB, JmG and NY. i was really disapointed after the draft. Ndiaye is DL bound and seraphin is nice to have but clearly a project. Booker was taken to early i think but is a nice addition. All in all i think EG dropped the ball in this draft.

Still, lets be positive about what we have and be exited about JW!

by Dutch Hoopfan on Jul 27, 2010 6:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

Hmm well Memphis may not be able to keep Henry

They are still in a contract dispute where they only want to pay 80% and not the upscaled 120% for rookies, I found it on hoopshype the article. We can still get our wish of a good 3 :)

by Kend3zy on Jul 27, 2010 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, I just do not get this one at all....

Obviously they had to overpay Rudy Gay… but why get into a penny-ante fight with your top draft pick, even if he plays the same position?

Just sign the dude and trade him, already.

by khrabb on Jul 27, 2010 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

I dunno

Maybe I’m just a cynicm but I tend to believe that
1.) EG said that stuff about wanting to draft Hinrich because Hinrich was sitting next to him, and
2.) Hinrich really shouldn’t take a lot of credir for mentoring Rose, because EG has been talking about how Hinrich made Rose a better defender, only Rose has been bad and didn’t really improve last year.

As I said, though, maybe that’s just me, and in general I think the trade was fine.

Ridiculous Upside, where developing talent and winning are not mutually exclusive.

by Jon L on Jul 26, 2010 11:41 PM EDT via mobile reply actions  

...credit...

Ridiculous Upside, where developing talent and winning are not mutually exclusive.

by Jon L on Jul 26, 2010 11:43 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

He wasn't worth it, but now that we've got him..

I’m glad he’s with us. At least with Hinrich, you know what you’re getting, and what you’re getting is good. You can’t say that about most players in the league, even stars (see Stoudemire, Amare).

by satchmore on Jul 26, 2010 11:56 PM EDT reply actions  

false dichotomy

Either use the cap space on a free agent (bad) or use it on this hinrich trade. Of the two options, you puruse the hinrich trade. However, there are two other options. Don’t use the cap space or use the cap space in a different trade. It seems very likely that we could’ve used the cap space for a better asset while taking back no long-term dollars.

But, as you point out, we can still have cap space next season, ergo not a bad use of cap space. This ignores the extra 8 million we would have if we had done a deal with no long-term salary. A decent amount of cap space is good, a lot of cap space is better.

Oh, but Kirk brings proffesionalism. Correct. However, this means two things. One, that he is a good guy who benefits the locker room. (This is important, but blown out of propotion by the media. They really love pros because they give them good access). Secondly, that his talents off the court are starting to eclipse his talents on the court. When the first thing a player is known for is his proffesionalism, you know he isn’t on the team/court for his basketball contributions. The wizards over payed for a decling back-up pg, who is proffesional. While I cannot research this right now (I’m one of the lucky ppl without power and my blackberry’s browser sucks), I will bet you that their is a free-agent pg who can bring proffesionalism to the wizards without incurring any long-term costs to the wizards.

So to recap, the wizards overpayed for an asset (seraphin), hurt future flexibility (hinrich’s contract) to get a commodity that is cheap on the open market. Look, I think Ernie was right to eschew a big or middle free agent. I think he was right to use boyd. I think he was right to find a mentor for Wall, a true pro. But his execution was terrible. He could’ve done all those things while getting better assets in return without compromsing any long-term cap flexibilty.

That is where he has failed, not once but many times. This is why Ernie is a terrible GM who should be relieved of his duties.

by zeke5123 on Jul 27, 2010 12:08 AM EDT via mobile reply actions   1 recs

sorry for the spelling/grammar

I am a loss without red or green lines. Yikes!

by zeke5123 on Jul 27, 2010 12:11 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

few things...

Disagree with your conclusions…Professionalism may be overblown by the media but it is absolutely necessary with this team. The wizards are coming off what may be the worst season in franchise history…good locker room guys like Kirk is absolutely necessary. He will be a good influence for the young players (not really worried about John Wall as he already seems to be a student of the game’ I am looking at you Nick Young).

Just looked through the free agency pool, and not really any guys that are as good as Kirk. Who do you want? Earl Watson? He is cheaper (not so dynamic though). Or how about Jordan Farmar (not as good of a defender).

Also, Wizards have said time and time again that they are committed to build through youth and the draft. They are not going to make a run at a player like Carmelo next year (as much as yoi want to believe that. If they want cap space, they can not offer qualifying offers to a few of their pieces. Or, they could potentially use Kirk as trade bait. A contract in the last year of it’s deal is valuable. They could parlay him into more assets through that avenue as well. Either direction the team goes, they are not really hurt by having Kirk.

Finally, from a pure basketball stand point, Kirk brings hard nosed defense, ability to play the one and the two (which is a need because now he can play one or two with gil and one with Wall), and good 3 point shooting ability. He is also a solid facilitator (career average of 5.8 assists to only 2.2 turnovers).

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 27, 2010 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

While I still contend that professionalism is overblown

I did acknowledge that it was important. However, it is possible to find that professionalism at a lower cost. Chris Duhon, Steve Blake, Luke Ridnour all signed 4 year deals for approximately 15-16 million. That is less then Hinrich’s total contract for only two years. Tell me Duhon, Blake, or Ridnour wouldn’t have jumped at a 3 year deal worth 15 million? Have the deal descend, six, five, four million. That get’s them to free agency quicker. You could even throw in a team option for a fourth year at 5 million, where if the team refuses, they are paid a million dollars. \

If we pursued a free agent like this, we’d still have cap room for BOYD trade with New Orleans. We’d have more cap room next year (cap room is worth more then an expiring contract). We’d have a solid, professional back-up PG, locked up to a cheap reasonable deal. That final year at four million is slightly overpriced for a back-up pg, but not terrible.

So you maintain better cap management for next year, you could have gotten a better assets, and you end up with roughly the same player. The difference between Steve Blake and Kirk Hinrich over the amount of minutes they’d be playing is rather small. As an FYI, Hinrich had a lower PER than Blake last year.

by zeke5123 on Jul 27, 2010 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

If we signed Blake or one of those other guys

1. They are under contract for longer – I would rather pay Kirk 8 million for 2 years then pay Blake 6 million for 3 years. (Its irrelevant anyway as Blake took less $ to sign with Lakers. We would have most likely had to offer 6 million/yr over four years to get him.)

2. We would not have acquired the 17th pick. Seraphin might not pan out, but he very well might be the tough, agile big man we need to pair with Wall.

by DT711 on Jul 27, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not sold on having to have a mentor that plays

I’m sure there is a vet out there that could be brought in for his “veternaness.” Doesn’t have to be a pg.But if you want a PG who could play, you could’ve signed someone like Blake/Duhon.

 Take Duhon. He signed 4 years at 15 million. I’d bet he would’ve signed 3 years at 15. You could structure it so that the final year he’d only be making 4 million.

 This year, we’d have gained 3 million in flexibility. Next year, we’d gain another three million. In exchange, we’d give up 4 million of flexibility in two years. Furthermore, we’d get a worse back-up PG. However, if his main skill is his profesional attitude, then I don’t see the differnce between Duhon/Hinrich. And in the small amount of playing time a back-up gets, the differnce in the on court production will be minimal.

We could’ve topped the thunders deal and grabbed the 11th pick. We could’ve taken Henry/Aldrich. Either are spots we need depth talent at.
So 11th pick + Mo Pete (pro) + D-Song (pro) + Duhon (pro) + 3 million in cap savings this year + 3 million cap savings next year or Seraphin + Hinrich (pro) + 3 million cash. To me, this is a no brainer. You pursue the first option. This provides you with plenty of pro’s to aide John Wall’s ascent. It provides you with greater cap flexibilty next season. It gives you expirings for the deadline. It sets you up better.

I know this is hypothetical, but it seems the assumptions are fair (i.e. New Orlenas wants to dump as much salary as possible, Free Agents who haven’t made a lot of money want the most as possible).

by zeke5123 on Jul 27, 2010 3:25 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Yeah cuz having Vets who don't play has helped us so much in the past

Cough, oberto, cough, Mike James, cough. I don’t think young guys respect a teams 12th man. Your scenarios are nice but don’t jibe with Leonsis’s plan. The team didn’t want to take on contracts more than 2years. Most people who are so upset about the trade are just upset about Leonsis’s vision. It’s gonna be a long few years for them.
Also I bet KH plays atleast 28mpg this season. I don’t think you should write off any contribution as minimal when he will probably be in the top 5 of mpg for this team.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 27, 2010 3:54 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

But...

OKC gave up two rookies to jump up to take that pick. So we probably would have had to give up our 2 seconds (or Booker)…then it gets murkey… I don’t know then… Especially since it doesnt seem the Wizards are keen in spending the “salary cap flexibility” anyways. Also, as I said before the biggest thing he brings is not his “professionalism”, but his versatility. He can play both the one and the two on offense and defend both the one and the two on defense. You need that if you are playing the likes of D-Wade, Joe Johnson etc. a multitude amount of times. I can see Kirk getting around 30 miniutes a game this year since he is the main backup to both Wall and Gil.

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 27, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

This isn't about just plugging a gap

EG waned Hinrich. He didn’t want Duhon or other some also ran off the wavier wires. So the fact that he was able to get the player he actually coveted and the 17 pick and 3 million doesn’t make up for moving up a whole six spaces in the draft.

Also MP makes a great point about keeping cap flexibility for the long term over the short term. yeah we are over paying Kirk but what does it matter now. I would rather over pay Kirk now then stretch his deal over multiple years ( i.e. 4 years ) and be stuck trying to ship him off like we had to do with Stevenson.

I don’t see the differnce between Duhon/Hinrich.

Duhon can only play the point that’s it. Kirk can play the one or the two and as MP mentioned do some spot duty at the the three if necessary. Also defense and hustle are contagious. When the younger players see a veteran like Kirk hustling and playing lock down D it can only lead to good things. Kirk is the type of guy the Wizards were missing during the entire Big Three so getting down on him over 5 spots in the draft and 4 million seems like to me to be small potatoes.

by ccrun1800 on Jul 27, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm sympathetic to this point of view

And I think I’d probably play it similarly (i.e. a BOYD trade for a one-year guy, then a couple Nets-like contracts to guys like Morrow/Wright, etc.) , but in seeing how the rest of the summer has played out, I’m realizing that the Wizards’ way also makes some sense. The upside to Hinrich over that is a) Hinrich can play a bit and therefore might demand more respect, and b) Hinrich represents only one additional year of commitment, whereas someone like Wright/Morrow would have represented more.

by Mike Prada on Jul 27, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

I guess I disagree with the Wizards view

In many ways, keeping long-term flexibility is extremely important. But you can become pennywise and poundfoolish. I feel their view becomes pennywise. Sure, we don’t have many long-term committements.Sure, we got some assets. But by strictly following that plan, they gave up a lot of options in the present. I.e obtaining a better pick, having greater flexibilty in the present.I feel like it was pennywise to plan for all the flexibilty in the future, but poundfoolish to ignore the oppurtunites in the present, especially with so many teams deseperate. We had a unique oppurtunity to get some strong assets and blew it in the name of long-term flexibilty.

Just because this transaction follows the Wizards view does not mean it was good. If the underlying view is bad, then the transaction is bad. I fear the vision is slightly faulty.

by zeke5123 on Jul 27, 2010 4:29 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Agreed...

…but I don’t think it was too bad this year. The market was definitely inflated and maybe it wasn’t such a bad idea to sit this year out (35 mil for outlaw? 20 mil for darko)…The wizards have long temr flexibility as well…Kirk is only oly under contract for 2 years (probably can trade him next year if they want)…

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 27, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

What are you talking about?

The 11th pick was traded in return for 2 1st round draft picks. We got the #17 pick while solving the 3rd guard/backup PG/good defender/lead-by-example player without giving up ANYTHING of value.

See, that cap space wasn’t getting spent and no other contracts of more than 1 year were acquired, so Grunfeld got #17 and Hinrich for free.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 27, 2010 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

So

11th pick plus two bad contracts instead of one for the 2nd round pick. Or buy a pick later and trade it to the Hornets. Trying to clear cap space was the Hornets m.o. Ship off VV plus a late first/early 2nd. Hornets jump on that.

by zeke5123 on Jul 27, 2010 10:38 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

"also makes some sense"?

As I’ve been saying since draft night, it makes tons of sense, especially given the upcoming CBA issue. It’s just not exactly what falls under the definition of a strict BOYD strategy.

The Wiz have cap space, flexibility and enough expiring contracts for each of the next 2 years to pursue almost any player that comes onto the trade/FA market. That’s just enough time to see how the Wall/Arenas/Blatche/McGee core pans out and what pieces need to be added.

And all that assumes that Hinrich brings nothing of value on or off the floor.

The strategy makes a lot more than “some sense”.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 27, 2010 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'd much rather have 2 years of KH

than 4 years of pretty much anyone else(Childress, Blake, Duhon, etc). Wall needs atleast 2 years to develop so I’m cool with not burdening our cap with long term contracts to role players. I don’t wanna repeat the Songalia, Etan, Stevenson mistakes.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 27, 2010 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Not saying four years

A 3 year contract at the same dollar amount is worth more to a player like duhon. This saves us cap flexibilty for this year and next (a cap savings of 3 million and 3 million next year) while losing 4 million in flexibilty in year three.I’m saying that extra flexibilty next year plus the expirings obtained from a deal with the hornets is worth more then that 4 million flexibilty two years from now.

by zeke5123 on Jul 28, 2010 9:04 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

neither of the players...

…can play the 2 as well as Kirk nor can play defense as well (on both the 1 & the 2). He brings a lot of things to the plate…not just professionalism and ability to play the 1. Plus whats the point of having salary cap space when the team is not going to use it anyways. They may be over paying for a player but the wizards think he has a combination of skills very important.

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 27, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah the Bulls traded him away with hopes of D-wade

But since that didn’t work out, are now settling for Tracy McGrady.

The more balls the better... ping-pong balls, that is.

by returnofswagger on Jul 27, 2010 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Remember Life Before Ernie?

All the Ernie bashers need to take a step back and remember life under Jordan / Wes / Abe. Think of all the mind-boggling decisions over the years— Webber for Mitch Richmond, Ben Wallace for Ike Austin, the Kwame debacle, Rip for Stackhouse, etc., etc. Ernie came in, turned this team around quickly and made the ’zards relevant for a while.

Yes, Ernie made some major miscalculations doling out huge contracts to Arenas and Jamison and trading the #5 pick last year. But holy crap, what a recovery! If not for last year’s mistakes there is no way we luck into the #1 pick this year. And it’s a freaking miracle he was able to unload both of our overpaid, overrated “All Stars,” Jamison and Butler.

Is Ernie in the same league as Sam Presti? Absolutely not! But neither are 90% of the GM’s in this league. I’d rate Ernie among the top third and remembering how bad it used to be, I’m pretty grateful for the job he has done.

Ultimately the Heinrich deal will be measured on whether or not Seraphin turns into a solid pro. The odds are not great and I think I’d rather the ‘zards had Livingston + Childress over Heinrich + Seraphin but hopefully, I’m wrong…

Bullets fan stuck in CO.

by Krusty2 on Jul 27, 2010 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don't even know exactly how I feel about Grunfeld...

But just because the people before him were worse doesn’t make him good.

by FNFWizardsFan on Jul 27, 2010 5:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

Not just the people before him...

but all the clowns out there now posting as NBA GM’s. Kevin Pritchard is available and is touted as a genius but he took Oden over Durant and made a few other blunders.

Who would you suggest to replace him? I’d vote for Bill Simmons (half serious) but that ain’t gonna happen.

Bullets fan stuck in CO.

by Krusty2 on Jul 27, 2010 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Not Every GM...

Bill Simmons would not have (ha ha)!

Bullets fan stuck in CO.

by Krusty2 on Jul 27, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Please spare us Simmons

and his revisionist history. I will give you the fact that he is a funny columnist but its laughable that he even considers himself GM material. The ESPN trade machine, which I like to call the " Gift and the Curse machine ", pretty much just made everyone a GM.

by ccrun1800 on Jul 27, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

But he makes

great moves like rudy fernandez….getting that french kid @ the end of the draft (who becomes a regular contributor)…made some interesting moves this past draft. Got brandon roy (and fleeced Minnesota by sending them Foye in the process)…etc..

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 27, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

We are thinking championship now...

forget playoffs…we need to build a championship team and Ernie is doing a horrible job at doing that. We traded Jamison, Butler, and Haywood and ended up with Al Thorton and the last 1st round pick along with a early 2nd round pick.

Look at the Thunder though. They got their big pick for sucking like us (Durant) but they are surrounding that team with lottery talent (Maynor, Harden, Westbrook, and Green). That is why i’m looking at this Arenas situation with a close eye, because if we don’t get at the least a good lottery pick for Arenas then i’m going to go crazy….that is if we trade him which I still think we should. It will help in the long run…

by ATLredskin on Jul 27, 2010 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

The rebuild started just months ago, have a little patience.

Wall, McGee, Blatche, Young, Booker, Seraphin & N’diaye is a pretty good young core to build around. They’ll need more but rebuilding doesn’t happen overnight.

by Johnnie Futbol on Jul 27, 2010 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

also

If Grunfeld can get a lottery pick out of trading Arenas then I’m guessing he can walk on water too.

by Johnnie Futbol on Jul 27, 2010 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

Also remember...

How long did it take the seattle/OKC franchise to rebuild. After they lost ray allen, it was a rudder-less ship. They just started recently getting good fortune. We are way ahead of them in those terms.

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 27, 2010 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well

They did draft Durant in the same year they traded Ray.

by Mike Prada on Jul 27, 2010 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

True...but...

Towards the end of the ray allen era in Seattle, they were pretty bad. Last time they went to the playoffs were like 04-05

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 27, 2010 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly. Sorry Mike

but your defense of the Hinrich deal makes no sense. As zeke says, our ability to rescind the qualifying offer to Thornton, Young, and Yi is irrelevant. We would still be able to do that and have $8 million more space without Hinrich.

I don’t think anyone who wants more cap space is advocating using it in free agency. We want to flip that space for short term contracts + draft picks. Using $17 million of cap space for the #17 pick is inexcusable when the #25 was sold for $3 million CASH.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 27, 2010 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

You still have to field a team somewhere in there

No one is going to want to see " John Wall and the Minimal contracts " for two or three seasons.

by ccrun1800 on Jul 27, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

No one wanted to see the crud

the Caps trotted out before Ovie either. The point is that you have to make sacrifices in the present for success in the future.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 27, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think Mike was saying the KH trade allowed us to rescind offers

He was just pointing out that we still have enough cap space for a max guy next year so it’s not hurting any long term flexibility. We still ahve plenty of space this year and next to make moves. I’m not endorsing the trade but I understand their viewpoint. They don’t consider Hinrich the player worthless like you do. They see him helping in the short term(6th man) and the long term(mentor Wall, add Defensive energy to the team and set a good example). Plus they got the #17 pick and 3m which help in the long term.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 27, 2010 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sure but anyway you slice it

$8 mil + $x in cap space is better than $x. Simply because Hinrich’s salary can be “mitigated” by rescinding offers, doesn’t make it any better because those offers could be rescinded anyway. No way is the #17 pick is worth giving up $17 million more in cap space than the #25.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 27, 2010 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

I still don't see your point

You think we need 22M next summer. I get your point that we would have more but I think we will already have more than we need. Plus, again, to the team KH has value. So KH plus the #17 to them is way more valuable than the #25. I don’t understand all the angst unless you were banking on us taking on 22M or so worth of salaries next summer.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 27, 2010 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's exactly what I want

We could take Garnett off of the Celts hands allowing them one more shot at the title in exchange for a bevy of draft picks. Or we could split up the 22M for multiple players from multiple teams. What seems clear is that $17M of cap space is way too much to give up for just one #17 pick.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

Your def. Distorting things

Just because you don’t value Hinrich doesn’t he doesn’t have court value. To say the #17 cost 17m isn’t really accurate. A guy who will be an integral part of the team or a valuable expiring contract next year plus the #17 cost that money. You keep on saying that but it’s disingenuous at best. Not to mention your trade scenario is dubious. There might be pie in the sky scenarios where it could hurt us but the simple truth is we have plenty of flexibility and can get a max guy or do 2-3 BOYD trades next year. I think your doomsday scenarios are very unlikely, respectfully.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 12:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Plus

Ted got $3m back from the Bulls I believe. That may not matter to some fans or to the cap, but if it buys me a shelf to put my beer on while I pee, then I like this trade even more. And it means we can go over the cap by $1.5m down the road and be net even, right?

by mogoman on Jul 28, 2010 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think so

the luxury tax is $70m next year which the Wiz won’t get close to. I believe that every team under the luxury tax shares in the bonus, so whether the Wiz are under the salary cap, which is $58m, doesn’t affect that payout.

It’s pretty much impossible to be glad that Leonsis is getting cash because as fans we want him to spend cash.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

down the road, not now

To your point, they would still lose out on the rev share, but getting $3m cash now offsets a tax payment of up to $1.5m in the future.

by mogoman on Jul 28, 2010 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

It only offsets a tax payment of $1.5 mil if they

were already over the luxury cap. If they were under and then went’ $1.5m over, they have to pay $1.5 mil in salary, $1.5 mil in tax, and they forgo the luxury bonus all teams under the cap get.

But the larger point is that we want Leonsis to spend money. Getting $3 million back in two deals is bad news for us fans when one can assume that he could have acquired another asset or two instead of that $6 million.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Cash is only useful if it's used

The Yi and Hinrich trades are two instances where Leonsis didn’t use his money. He could have acquired other assets but preferred to get cash. That is bad for us fans.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

I have to admit I can't help laughing

when you complain about the team not spending money by acquiring guys you’re complaining are overpaid.

I get your underlying point – I don’t think complaining about trading cap space to acquire a pick and Hinrich (w/ accompanying contract) is a good example of not spending money.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Cash is an asset.

Because we cannot directly tie the acquisition/possession of that asset to the quality of the present and/or future on-court basketball product, we assume that the acquisition/possession of that asset has no impact on the quality of the present and/or future on-court basketball product.

by jones-y on Jul 29, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think the value of having a positive, pro locker room and some good examples of solid players around all of our young guys is being almost ignored.

by MR on Jul 28, 2010 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Two things

Didn’t we have solid pros in the locker room the last couple of years? Wasn’t Antwan Jamison the Pro’s Pro? Sorry, but I really think everyone is overvaluing this. There are numerous examples of good lockers room that don’t win, good locker rooms that don’t foster young talent. There are many an example of bad locker rooms that win and that foster good talent. The results about the influence of Pro’s are marginal at best. It sounds great in print, on the airwaves and on television, but the theorem that a good locker room creates a great environment that significantly helps development is not so great when tested.

Secondly, the cost of getting a professional is not that high. There are many vets out there available for a lot less than Hinrich. If you HAVE to have a back-up professional pg, you don’t need to spend 17 million over two years on it.

by zeke5123 on Jul 28, 2010 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

could you provide them

all of these examples of terrible locker rooms that have won and developed young players?

by Jheiser3 on Jul 28, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Incomplete list of terrible locker rooms that won

Lakers (Shaq/Kobe)
Bulls (Jordan punched out his teammates, seemed Pippen came along fine)
Pistons (Wallace, they developed Prince)
Take Paul Pierce. He had Antoine Walker on his team. Maybe the definition of not pro. He seemed to turn out just fine.
Chris Bosh had no real locker room presence.

Take for instance ’Sheed. He played with high quality locker room guys. Mark Price. Sabonis was a pro. But he is a hot head.

Finally… Michael Jordan. He seemed to develop well. Sure, he was a bad teammate. Didn’t create a good locker room. But damn was he a pro. He had no pros around him. Scrubs. No one to learn from. Can you provide an example where good locker rooms have turned an ehh player into a good player, or ehh teams into good teams? Because there are examples of bad locker rooms winning from just this decade.

by zeke5123 on Jul 28, 2010 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm ignoring court value for a reason

Hinrich’s court value isn’t (in my opinion) going to help this team make the playoffs. It is therefore at best irrelevant and at worst harmful to our draft position next year.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

And that little problem about his court value diminishing every season

Though I guess that could be good. I’m with you. I am fine losing next season. I want to see an exciting group, that has it’s moments but doesn’t win alot of games. We can use the high pick next year plus cap space to grab more picks or impact players. I want to compete not this year but next year. I feel that is better, both for the long-term success of this franchise and for championship contention. I don’t want to be stuck in mediocrity. I feel like we won’t have true contender pieces until three years now.

by zeke5123 on Jul 28, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree

Wall should be the first piece to the puzzle, but he’s not enough. We need to add more good, young talent that will peak 5-10 years down the road.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

ahhh see I'm not a Tank at all costs guy

If a move helps us in both the short term and long term I’m cool with it. I’m just against moves that only have short term value. You can ignore his court value but that’s not reality. He does in fact have court value and will be one of our 5 best players. I think when you say $17M for the #17 you are distorting things to advance a point. I think whether we have a high draft pick or not depends way more on Arenas and Wall then it does on KH. I get your point Palace I just think what you present as a certainty is very unlikely and not something to be in a lather about. Besides no one hampers our cap space next year more than Gil. From your viewpoint he should be the main source of ire.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not either

I was rooting for wins at the end of last season. But getting better by five wins next year to go 32-50 isn’t worth the marginal cost to the future. In five years we’ll wish we had another fourth-year former first rounder on our roster.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

See I still don't see the "cost to the future"

Do I think you can come up with convoluted scenarios where it might hurt us? Possibly. I think it’s unlikely and can be said about any move. We can still easily pick up 2-3 more picks next year or at the deadline and I love how we are gonna have a ton of room 2 years from now when Wall is gonna start being ready.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think that it's convoluted

to assume that an extra $8 million in cap space can get us an extra pick. And foregoing an extra pick is clearly a cost for the future.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

You're also assuming that this amorphous future pick

will be of more value than Kevin Seraphin and having Kirk on the team for however long he stays on the team. That’s a total crapshoot.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ehh

Do you need more than 3 picks after we just had 3 picks? Plus how many picks can one team pick up in one year?

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, I don't. ;)

Seriously, I think it is a generally good thing to consider the ages/roles of players on the team. But I think that’s dangerous when taken to the extreme of having a bunch of young guys who are all going to want PT and are going to be coming up for extensions at the same time.

It blew up in Chicago’s face a few seasons ago. Portland swore up and down that they were going to be different, but still ended up with many of the same issues. It looks golden for OKC right now, but they’re going to have the same issues shortly too. I like the Thunder, so I’m hoping they’ve figured out how to manage it.

I personally agree with what Ernie said about needing vets on the team as well to balance it out. A guy like Kirk has the added benefits of actually being on the floor and playing a good-sized role for the team, but at the same time having proven a willingness to put the team first and help younger guys rather than undermining them for his personal PT/benefit. I don’t think a bench-riding vet has nearly the same weight with the younger players.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

All that I am assuming

is that $17 million in cap space is better for the team’s long term prospects than, two years of Hinrich and the #17 pick.

Considering that the #25 was available for $3 million, this one seems like a no-brainer.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

And all I'm saying

is that I disagree with that assumption.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

$17 million in cap space is better for the team’s long term prospects than, two years of Hinrich and Kevin Seraphin, a very promising PF/C project who many in the NBA are high on

That’s a little more representative of the scenario. And a little harder to agree with…

by jones-y on Jul 28, 2010 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

The #17 is the #17

he didn’t go higher for a reason.

To get less than $10 million in cap space the Knicks gave up the right to switch first rounders in 2011, their first rounder in 2012, and their 2009 first rounder Jordan Hill.

Compare that to our deal.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

your viewpoint on it

hinges on whether you consider hinrich an asset… timing had a lot to do with the knicks deal too. this is getting tired.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

also Jones-y you forgot the 3M

which is basically the #25 pick for us next year as far as Palace is concerned. We can still net another first rounder from the KH deal.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

I wasn't trying to be rude if your replying to me MR

I respect Palace’s just disagree with how he is characterizing things on this issue.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Unfortunately

we don’t seem to be inclined to buy draft picks.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

We'll see I guess

Still you should factor it in since you are factoring in using the cap space for something as well.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can factor it in sure

Ted Leonsis now has $2,006,000,000 to spend on the Wizards.

The problem is that we have no idea how much he has budgeted to spend on them, and whether acquiring this money will mean that he will spend more in the future.

I had hoped for an owner who didn’t have a budget for the team, but that’s not what we have. I still am really happy we have him, but it is slightly disappointing.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

That money

is going to fix up the food vendors in the Verizon Center…

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Maybe, I think getting 6M makes someone more liekly to spend 6M but who knows

I’m sorry we are going around and around on it. I understand your logic and you very may well be right just like it very well might not matter depending on what opportunities are available. I just don’t think that 8M next year is anywhere near as likely to hurt us as you do. I think we can both admit only time will tell.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah

we are going to have to revisit this conversation next summer and at the next two trade deadlines.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

if that 17th pick ends up being like

Danny Granger of 2005, Josh Smith of 2004, or Jermaine O’Neal of 1996 then 17 million was easily worth it

by DaGribb on Jul 27, 2010 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks

I’m really glad someone said this.

by ReboundingLs on Jul 27, 2010 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Unfortunately

this type of thinking leads to perpetual mediocrity.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 27, 2010 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

"Kurt"

happens to be what Del Negro called Hinrich repeatedly during his tenure as bulls coach. I think it stuck and became a nickname/running joke and now everyone’s calling him “Kurt”

by Marine4Life51 on Jul 27, 2010 6:09 AM EDT reply actions  

Kirk, Kurt, Burt, Ernie...

Ya gotta like Mr Hinrich at least a little, and I am glad to see Mike has come around a bit after the press conference.

Now if Seraphin becomes the agile bruiser up front that management expects him to be, this deal with the Bulls for the rights to Veermenko gets right up into and possibly beyond Caron for Kwame territory.

by khrabb on Jul 27, 2010 6:17 AM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Agreed on all, but...

If you are going to make a fairly nuanced argument that Jamison was a “pro” but not a “leader” (not one with which I disagree mind you), I think it is then hard to automatically brand Wall a “leader” before he has played a single game that counts. Signs point to him being a leader, but let’s not brand the bull before it’s born.

by Jim America on Jul 27, 2010 12:54 PM EDT reply actions  

True

I guess the point is he’s going to be channeled into that role, and he actually has the qualities to do it.

by Mike Prada on Jul 27, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think having Hinrich around is gonna help Wall and even Gil

a ton next year. And I really like the 3 guard set Ted mentioned. Hinrich will be really tough for most SF’s to keep up with and he is just another guy for JWall to dish out to when he penetrates. That will be some fast-paced offense. Not to mention, the Bulls are probably wishing they still had him around now that they didn’t end up with Wade or that other guy. I hope Hinrich is on this team for a long time to come.

The more balls the better... ping-pong balls, that is.

by returnofswagger on Jul 27, 2010 1:26 PM EDT reply actions  

Mosts SFs are going to have an easy time scoring on him.

by Fundefined on Jul 27, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Like Paul Pierce?

by DT711 on Jul 27, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

love your icon pic

at least this summer was better then lasts!

by DaGribb on Jul 27, 2010 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Kirk may be overpaid but it not like the wizards need the cap space at the moment and his deal is up in 2 years. Hinrich barely missed out on being 2nd team all defense last year and he wasnt even a starter when the bulls had john salmons. He brings tough defense, leadership, experience, versatility, and intelligence. And believe it or not he can knock down some shots. His shot does come and go but he is the bulls all-time 3 point leader and that has to say something. He is the perfect glue guy for this team. A tough defender who plays hard, doesnt make too many mistakes, can play more than one position, and can make shots when needed

by wichita_jayhawk on Jul 27, 2010 3:32 PM EDT reply actions  

We'll have to wait until the trade deadline

to see if

it’s not like the wizards need the cap space at the moment

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 27, 2010 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

The expirings are only useful

to flip for a contract that ends in 2012. Cap room is infinitely more valuable because it allows our trading partners to get under the cap immediately.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 27, 2010 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Can't they be combined?

So that we take on 5M or so more than we give up? Thats enough for alot of teams to get under the tax.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 27, 2010 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes but it makes it much much harder

and it’s more than just teams that want to get under the luxury tax. For instance, New Orleans wants to get rid of Peja’s contract even though they could get under the cap just by getting rid of Songaila’s (adding in cap holds).

The Wiz don’t have the right combination of players to give up (plus $5m in cap space) to trade for Peja, whereas they could do it with the extra cap space.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't agree

We have lots of small expirings and extra cap space. Seems it would be fairly easy to find a combination for any salary we want to take on.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 12:24 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

The expiring contracts are

Yi, Young, and Thornton. Their salaries total $9.5m. Peja’s contract is $15.3m. Therefore we would need a little more than $5.8m in cap space to make the deal (and we would have to wait two months to trade Yi with other players). At the moment it looks like we have enough space to do it, but we will have to wait until our roster is set to know for sure. In any case, the deal got a lot more complicated.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

To me it depends

on what we could get draft-pick wise for Peja compared to what we got for Kirk. We’ll have to wait until/if NO trades Peja to see what we could have gotten.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

NO can't trade next years draft pick anyways so we are talking 2012 assets probably lottery protected

plus we have Martin, Armstrong, Ndiaye, Hudson maybe. That’s another 1.5-2M atleast. I think we will have plenty to work with at the deadline. More complicated, sure. Really complicated? not really IMO.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

We can't trade all of those players

even just the three expirings because then we’d be under the minimum roster.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Let's just say I find this nightmare scenario

not particulary scary. If they just wanted to get under the tax they could send us D-Song and a pick or Thornton, Brackins, Pondexter. Not sure why they would want to make Peja’s whole contract disappear this year or trade it for other expirings. It seems there only motivation would be to get under the tax. Maybe I just misunderstand you. We will still be pretty flush in expirings and cap space at the deadline compared to most of the league.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Do you really see any big name free agents wanting to come to washington anytime soon? Wall is a great addition but its going to take him atlest a couple seasons to get into the swing of things. I hope they can get mello next year but im not going to count on it. Hes going to want to win now and there are better opportunities else where. Just being realistic. Hope im wrong

by wichita_jayhawk on Jul 27, 2010 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Don't forget Arenas insurance

In the likely event that Arenas is not playing for the Wizards for a meaningful chunk of the season, Hinrich gives us a quality SG to pair with Wall. It’s fairly important, considering Arenas’ physical and mental history, and that the team wants to trade him. Management can’t really talk about that potential benefit, but this move is going to look much smarter if they manage to trade Arenas before Hinrich’s contract is up.

by steadyhand on Jul 27, 2010 4:45 PM EDT reply actions  

Even if Hinrich adds

5-10 wins next year over a D-leaguer, this trade still hurts our chances to be competitive 3-10 years down the road. I’d much rather give up the 5 wins this year because the difference betwen 25-57 and 30-52 isn’t a big deal for me.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 27, 2010 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

It hurts

because we can’t use the $8 mil in extra cap room next summer to acquire another draft pick.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 27, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I guess we will have to use the 14M instead of 22M to get another pick

I understand your point but don’t see it as handcuffing us at all. We have plenty of room to work with or acquire multiple picks next summer.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 27, 2010 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I'm not buying the "this destroys our long-term flexibility" argument

To echo what someone said above, they need to at least put a competitive team on the floor right now. For fans, yes; but also to remedy the dismal culture of losing that’s become endemic the last few seasons. What’s the point of getting the #1 pick if you’re just going to put him on a team of Nick Youngs? (Sorry, Nick.)

by satchmore on Jul 27, 2010 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

agreed

hinrich is a flip saunders kind of guy. if we’re paying flip that kind of money, we might as well get guys that fit the mold and will lead by example

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

Not everyone looking to make a trade is looking for cap space either

What about the teams looking to make a playoff run that want to trade for a complimentary piece like Hinrich?

And while time will definitely tell, I think the team will do better than 30 wins. What if that 5-10 wins is the difference between playoff experience and none for the kids? I think there’s a ton of value in that experience, and a far preferable tone for the team than preplanning to suck for a couple of years.

by wjb1492 on Jul 27, 2010 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

If Hinrich had any trade value

the Bulls wouldn’t have had to give up a draft pick to get rid of him.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Bulls needed to trade him for nothing, cap space wise

Not only that, they needed to do it quickly because of the free agency timeline.

That doesn’t mean he had no trade value. Not to mention, the trade landscape of the NBA changes going forward, now that the FA bonanza of 2010 has reached its miserable conclusion, and Kirk’s contract is increasingly desirable as a trade chip as it gets closer to its end.

Meanwhile, he can actually play and will contribute to the team.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

If Hinrich had trade value

the Bulls could have traded him for a draft pick. You’re right though that Hinrich does get more and more tradeable the closer his contract gets to ending – a hallmark of bad contracts.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think that's a distortion

KH has value they needed to find someone who could take on 9m without getting anything back before FA started. Unique situation. You think a contender wouldn’t send us expirings and a draft pick for him at the deadline or next summer?

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 12:31 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Aren't you illustrating the value of cap space

in that it allows a team to take on a contract without giving anything back? It may be true that this was a unique situation, but assuming there are even a couple teams able to take his contract on, it would have been possible for the Bulls to bid those teams against each other. What this deal says is that every team that had the cap space to take Hinrich on thought that he was a net negative and would require at least the #17 back to take him on.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Bulls didn't want a draft pick

They wanted – literally – nothing. The closest thing to that is the rights to a player who will never play in the NBA. And obviously the trade market was unusual this past season, with multiple teams trying to give away players for nothing to have cap space. I’m not suggesting that trades to clear cap space aren’t a normal occurrence, but not to the mad scramble extent of this offseason.

And there’s a whole spectrum of “bad contracts” in the league. Kirk’s is definitely not a good contract, but it’s far from Rip Hamilton or Eddy Curry status. I’m not anywhere close to as bothered as you seem to be to have a contributing player for 2 years versus having extra cap space that may or may not prove valuable for anything.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

How do you know the Bulls didn't want a draft pick?

Even a 2013 draft pick? Anyways, they didn’t want a draft pick so instead they gave one up? That makes no sense.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

They wanted nothing for this season

They did not want to have the cap hold or need to pay the salary for the #17. From what I’ve read, they would have preferred to move Luol Deng and his larger/longer contract, but couldn’t. So they did what they had to do at the last possible moment to clear the cap space – because the 3 idiots were about to hit free agency and the Bulls thought they had a great chance at landing at least one of them. Other reports over the past season+ have indicated that the Bulls had potential trades for Kirk but chose to keep him instead because of what he contributed to the team.

If you interpret that specific scenario as Hinrich having no trade value, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

They could still have traded

Hinrich for $1. And then traded the #17 for a future pick. There was no need to give up the pick if Hinrich had value. Furthermore there was two months between the end of the Bulls season and the trade for the Bulls to take their time to evaluate the market.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

But they were trading with no leverage

It was no secret that they wanted to trim the payroll and that they wanted to do it in a way that allowed them to take no salary back in return. They had absolutely no leverage in any deal they made. Which is why they had to give up a first round pick and 3 million dollars.

Kirk had no trade value because everybody and there mother knew why the Bulls were trying to trade him. Since the Bulls have no leverage they could not set any demands at all when it came to setting up the trade.

by ccrun1800 on Jul 28, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's not how leverage works

If there was more than one team interested in Hinrich, then the Bulls should have been able to bid up the offers.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Besides the Wizards who else

Had open cap space and was not trying to get into the FA bonanza. The Wizards were pretty much bidding against themselves .

by ccrun1800 on Jul 28, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't know the motivations of all the GMs

But Phoenix, Sacramento, Minnesota, OKC, Toronto, and LAC all could have taken him. Toronto, LAC, and Phoenix should have realized they weren’t getting a big FA or resigning their own.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

The only team out of that bunch

that didn’t make a big FA signing was Sacramento. Toronto and Phoenix had no cap space till after the draft and therefore were to risky for the Bulls to trade with. LAC was saving there cap for Lebron and judging by the signings of Kahn Minnesota is not in rebuilding mode.

That leaves the Kings who honestly were intrigued by the pick but are trying to come out of rebuilding mode and the Hinrich contract would have killed any hope of that.

So really it was just the Wizards in the end.

by ccrun1800 on Jul 28, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why didn't Toronto and Phoenix have space until after the draft?

was there a hold in place for Bosh and Amare? If so I can see the risk in trading with those teams, although everyone knew Bosh was leaving. If Hinrich is a valuable player, then wouldn’t Kahn have wanted him? Same for the Kings. I don’t understand the reasoning there.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

What are you talking about?

Why would Toronto, which is paying a huge amount to their PG, want a similar player when they are rebuilding? Why would Kahn want another PG other than they are collecting PGs?

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you have the Bird rights of a player

unless you renounce him a hold is placed on your cap that is equal to the value of the first year of his new contract. Toronto didn’t want to renounce Bosh even though they were losing him because they wanted to pull off a sign and trade which they did. Phoenix obviously that they had a chance at signing Amare until he bailed to NY.

by ccrun1800 on Jul 28, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Got it

thanks for the explanation. I knew it was going to be risky to try to go back and remember who had salary space.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wait

Are you trying to suggest that Hinrich has no value and they wouldn’t have been able to trade him for $1? I’m very confused by your argument at this point.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm saying

that if they could have traded him for $1, they would have done so. The fact that they had to give up a #17 means that every team that had the cap space to absorb his contract felt that he was a negative and would require the Bulls to give them at least the #17 in return.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

but..

There was a deal already set up (with Sacramento…we were just picked if it didn’t work out with them)

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's a leap too far

every team felt he was a negative? Or just didn’t need a $9M/yr PG on a 2 year contract. Those are 2 entirely different things.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Every team that had the cap space available

felt that it was better not to have Hinrich than to have Hinrich and the #17.

That’s the logical conclusion of us trading for Hinrich and not another team trading for him and requiring less of the Bulls..

Therefore every team that had cap space would rather not have Hinrich by himself.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

What does that have to do in the future?

That was a unique window. I don’t think your argument holds any water. Man your so zealous you are getting pretty loose with your conclusions.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Would agree with that

These hindsight alternatives are pie in the sky at best

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's economics

If the Bulls traded Hinrich to the Wizards, it’s safe to assume we gave them the best offer. Therefore, the Bulls best offer was to give up their #17 pick to get rid of Hinrich. Therefore no team would have traded for just Hinrich himself. Rather than labeling my conclusions loose, please point out the flaws.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Really weird logic here — you’re saying that if I sell you something then you’re stupid because nobody else would offer me that price. You could say the same thing about every trade ever made.

Then that #17 pick was probably more valuable to the Wizards than it was to anyone else. Your logic works both ways…

by steadyhand on Jul 28, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's not what I'm saying

so please don’t put words in my mouth. There are two discrete points to be made. The first is that assertions that Hinrich has any trade valuable are wrong based upon the trade that just happened where Chicago had to give up a pick to get rid of him. That was the point made in my reply.

The second point point is that the Hinrich trade was bad. I’m not basing that opinion on us “winning” the battle to trade for Hinrich. I’m basing that on the market for draft picks, particularly the fact that the #25 was available for $3 million cash.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is what seemed odd to me
every team that had the cap space to absorb his contract felt that he was a negative and would require the Bulls to give them at least the #17 in return

It seemed you were saying this proved that this was a bad deal. I agree with you about the market value of Hinrich+contract. I think what threw me was that you are saying Hinrich is a negative, when your really his contract.

by steadyhand on Jul 28, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes excuse me

his contract. I tend to speak only in terms of contracts because I don’t believe that Hinrich’s court value next year or over the next two years is relevant to a rebuilding franchise. Getting closer to mediocrity is not a selling point to me.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with your logic to the point that

no other team that could offer straight-up cap space made a better offer for Kirk.

How you get from there to Kirk having no trade value is beyond me. Due to the Bulls’ needs, they couldn’t even consider the value of any trade that would send back another player. The premium this summer was cap space. Ernie used that to get what he wanted.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Even if we were the only team

that could trade for Hinrich, we still managed to give up $17 million in cap space for a pick 8 slots higher than the pick that was for sale for $3 million.

For this trade to be reasonable, Hinrich should then be worth the difference in the value between what we gave up for the #17 and what Dallas gave up for the #25. I can understand people who think he is based upon court production and leadership etc,.

I just have a different view of how this team should be built. One that eschews wins this season for assets. That’s why I’m disappointed in this trade.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

again, not necessarily

it means the bulls were desperate to move salary and everyone knew it so anyone interested in taking on hinrich would have tried to extract more from the bulls, and we did exactly that. it comes down to what the bulls were willing to give up as much as anything else. it’s a game of chicken, chicago blinked.

the wiz probably had the choice between another deal where they got a pick and didn’t take on a player like hinrich – which they could have also used as leverage to get the pick out of chicago. the wizards chose to go with hinrich because they consider him an asset.

you can disagree with that move versus what you would have liked to have seen, but arguing hinrich has no intrinsic value based on us getting a pick in the deal leaves a whole lot out of the picture, and is almost surely wrong.

but that’s already been said multiple times so i doubt it’ll get through to you

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

If there were two teams interested

then the fact that the Bulls were desperate is no longer a factor. If Hinrich’s “value” is a hypothetical 10, and another team offered the Bulls a package worth 4, then the Wiz offered the Bulls a package worth 5, it would have been in the other team’s interest to offer the Bulls a package worth 6 because they still get a net value of 4. In this way, the market should have adjusted in such a way that the Bulls got market value for Hinrich.

As has been suggested by others, perhaps we were the only team interested in Hinrich in which case a market couldn’t have developed for him, however i do remember threats by the Bulls that Sacramento was interested.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Before anyone else does

I want to say that I know that markets are not that efficient. However, I simply cannot bring myself to believe that we robbed the Bulls because they were “desperate” when the Mavericks acquired a pick 8 slots lower for $3 million cash.

Desperate is the Knicks in the Rockets trade.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

But

Seraphin wasn’t going to be there at 25, and this trade was as much about Seraphin as it was about Hinrich.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

From what I read

Ernie really wanted Seraphin and he wasn’t likely to be there 8 spots lower. You can obviously disagree with who he picked, but that makes the #17 more valuable than the #25.

And who’s suggesting the trade didn’t also benefit the Bulls? At the time everyone was acting like the Bulls totally won the deal. In retrospect, I’d say it seems fairly even for both sides.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

yep

rumor: Kevin was going to be gone by pick 20

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Even?

Bulls gave up assets and got nothing in return. It’s a good trade now, if Seraphin becomes a Serge Ibaka type, this trade moves up into the Caron Butler-for-Kwame level heist.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, it's a good trade on this side

But Bulls also got what they wanted in having a shot at free agency, and have used the resulting cap space pretty well when that bombed out. I think some in the org would rather have Kirk back, but a lot of fans prefer the Brewer/Korver/Watson committee.

I don’t, simply because you can only put one guy on the floor at a time. But just because the Bulls missed out on a top guy doesn’t make the trade horrible.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, they had to make the move to have a shot

They also needed to get rid of the pick to avoid having to pay that guaranteed contract.

And I’d take the Brewer/Korver/Watson committee myself anyway.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2010 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

There's no doubt

the #17 is more valuable than the #25. I’m not disputing that at all. I just don’t think that 8 spots is worth $17 million in cap space. Maybe the difference between #9 and #1 sure, but not #25 and #17.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

I did and have Palace

That was a unique window. Would any team have given us a first rounder for AJ this summer before the draft? No but we got one 4 months earlier. If we had tried to trade him befor the draft we would have had to give up a first. Huge swing becuase of the particular circumstances of the 2010 FA class. To follow your economics example. If I had to sell a house it would fetch alot more not in a recession. There are timing circumstances that affect market value so to simply say “it had this value then so it will never have better value” is void of reality.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think the situation changed that much

between the Knicks deal and our deal. And between our deal and the Dallas purchase of #25.

Moreover, our circumstances when the Knicks deal went down were such that we absolutely should have jumped in. Seeing what Houston got makes what we got seem like a pittance.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

what?

explain to me how we could have jumped into that knicks deal

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

so you're equating kirk hinrich

with jared jeffries? yikes. no wonder you don’t like the trade.

and when we’re talking about market forces, you have yet to give any weight to the idea that we made chicago pay a premium for the cap space they coveted, and that other teams listening to chicago on the phone wouldn’t have done exactly the same.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

No I'm saying that getting Jeffries would have been better

A deal with the knicks would only have cost us $9 mil in space, 2 or 3 of that being Jordan Hill’s contract, and the rest being Jeffries. To get Hill plus at least another first round pick and save money blows this deal out of the water.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

i'll admit

i did forget jeffries comes off the books after this upcoming year.

if we had the same plan in place then, that we weren’t going after a free agent, then we definitely missed an opportunity, there, yeah.

but in no way am i going to set the market at anywhere near what the knicks gave up – that was madness.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Furthermore

“Paying a premium” indicates we made the Bulls pay more than market or “fair” value, but judging from the Knicks deal and the Dallas purchase, they paid much less.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

And how many teams was that?

Hinrich plus the #1 pick is $10M+ in cap space this year. How many teams had that kind of cap space and weren’t going after a big name free agent?

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also...

you realize, in hindsight, Chicago recently said they wished they didn’t trade KH.

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

But

no most people like the trade…only a few don’t…your point doesn’t make sense at all since the wizards are not keen on going after too many free agents…remember the tortoise comment by teddy?

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not keen on free agents either

The point of acquiring cap space is to leverage it to take on bad contracts + picks. In this way, the Hinrich deal was good vision, but poor execution based upon the market. The market is set by Dallas’s purchase of the #25 for $3 million CASH while we gave up $17 million in cap space for a pick 8 slots higher.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

To be fair

Jerry Reinsdorf said that, and he didn’t really say that, exactly, and he loves Hinrich way more than Hinrich is worth.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not necessarily

becuase they were gambling they would get Wade and a second superstar. They would need as much space as possible (including in the future)…

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Then they could have

rolled over the future pick for another future pick. Having draft picks is never a bad thing.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

His play

Has been trending downward. He was a solid rotation player last year. Next year when his contract is expiring, I don’t see him being a starter. If someone wants to add a hopefully solid rotation player with an 8 million dollar contract and give away anything of value, they can be my guest.

by zeke5123 on Jul 28, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

There weren't alot of teams bidding for KH

We were probably the only team that had the space and wasn’t planning on dipping into the FA market. To say that proves he has no value is pretty unrealistic or deceptive.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm actually quite interested to see how he does this season

Last season was a poor shooting season, for sure. He was horrible to start the season and OK to finish it. If that was reflective of playing better as a starter (42.5%, 38.5% 3s) than off the bench (36.2%, 32.2% 3s), it’s still a problem. If it was a cold start (33.3%, 28.3% 3s through mid-December) then reverting to the mean (42.7%, 38.9% 3s after), I’m not as concerned about it. Everyone loves to talk as if Kirk hasn’t shot acceptably in years, but he hit 43.7%, 40.8% 3s during the 08-09 season, and he did spend most of that season coming off the bench.

Also, a lot of the criticisms from Bulls’ fans were based more on wanting him off the team than actual stats. Fans are inclined to see what they want to see. Take a guy with a rep for hitting big shots and everyone remembers the 1 out of 3 big shots he hits – take a guy with a rep as a poor shooter and they remember the 2 he didn’t. The anti-clutch and can’t finish inside are overstated – not to say he’s “great” at these things, but he did shoot 44.4%, 35.7% 3s in 82games defined clutch time last season. Those stats are identical to Kobe, incidentally, although obviously in a vastly smaller sample size. And he hit 48.6% of inside shots – again, not “great” by any means – but that’s an awful lot of makes for people to ignore when claiming he can’t finish inside.

Meanwhile, he was also playing under Vinny Del Negro, who’s game planning leaves something to be desired. One of Kirk’s “issues” is that he always does his best to do what the coach calls for. That definitely inflates his value in a good-fit system with all teammates on the same page (a la Skiles), but just kills it when either the system sucks or he has teammates not following the game plan. I was really sorry to see him leave the Bulls this season because I wanted to see what Thib’s defensive game plan did for him.

I’m not super familiar with Flip, so I have no idea whether his style will be a good fit or not. But I am interested to see how it goes. He’s not a guy who is going to carry the offensive load, but he’s got a lot of other skills. If Flip can put him in a role that plays to his strengths, I think he’ll have a great season.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

you realize

he started 50+ games last year? he also averaged 30+ minutes (and played the 2 mainly…outside of his comfort zone)…

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

When you buy picks

 it doesn’t count against your salary cap..

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Was this a response to me?

It took a lot of scrolling up, haha, to try to see. If it was, I’m not sure I understand. I never said that buying picks counts against the cap. That’s why buying the #25 is so much better than using #17 mil in cap space to get the #17.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

haha yeah...

i am starting to get confused myself

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Could you at least be accurate and quit acting like it's $17 mil in cap space

The team can’t aggregate the 2 years’ cap space to do anything. It’s $9M, then $8M. Plus, Kirk fills a required roster spot, so it’s more like $8M and $7M – only then you have a $1M player riding the bench in that spot instead of a 3rd guard backing up both positions.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's $17 million

the fact that it is over two years is a red herring. In a salary cap structure, the per year cap figures are less relevant than the total figures.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's not even remotely true

The cap is annual. The team didn’t want to use the $9M this year, which means only the $8M next year should be bothering you (and actually only $7.5M different from a minimum roster hold). The team is still sitting on $6M or so in cap space that it does not appear to be interested in using.

by steadyhand on Jul 28, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't agree with that

The per-year thing is important in this case. As I mentioned in this post, the $9 million this year doesn’t matter, since in a different BOYD scenario, we’d pay a lot of that for a worse player. It’s the $8 million next year that’s the question, because the alternative (BOYD for a 2011 deal) doesn’t have that.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2010 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

To reply to wjb, steadyhand, and Mike

here is why I quote the $17million figure. Evaluate the following two trades:

1. Team 1 trades Player A and the #17 to Team 2 for essentially nothing. Player A makes $8.5million each of the next two years.

2. Team 3 trades Player B and the #17 to Team 4 for essentially nothing. Player B makes $17million for one year.

Player A is Hinrich and Player B is Peja (loosely). When evaluating these two trades, it is incorrect to say that Team 1 got a better deal than Team 3 because it only gave up $8.5million for the #17 pick, while Team 3 gave up $17million. The reason is that Team 3 can turn around next summer and do a similar trade for another #17 pick. The two deals are exactly equal.

That’s why when evaluating Hinrich’s deal, I quote the $17million figure because it more accurately represents the opportunity cost lost next summer.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

There is a chance

we can trade him after one year. Teams like contracts with only one year in it…it turns into an asset..

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't mind

that option either…actually, that is what I am hoping for…

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Speaking only of Hinrich's contract

teams are typically interested in trading for contracts with one year on it in exchange for longer contracts. Thus we have still hamstrung ourselves.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

pssst

(Don’t tell anyone, but Hinrich’s contract becomes a contract with one year on it at the end of this season)

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure what you're trying to snark

We can trade Hinrich next summer, or more likely at the 2012 deadline for a pick and a contract that ends in 2013. That doesn’t make this a good deal based upon market value. The Knicks deal and Dallas purchase set the market for clearing cap space and acquiring young assets and picks. We fell remarkably short.

Did anyone give up more for a draft pick this year?

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Kwame-Gasol deal was better than our Kwame-butler deal

Doesn’t mean our trade was a bad one to make. You completely discount the money(while pointing out you can buy picks with money) and Hinrichs value on the court. Which is fine but it makes your argument a little distorted/biased.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

I believe Hinrich was aquired

for his on court and off court contributions to the team. Not for wins this year, but as an example of professionalism, of hard playing.

Ignoring that totally distorts the trade.

by MR on Jul 28, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Of course I discount money

because we haven’t actually bought draft picks. Even if we buy a draft pick next year, will it be the $3mil we got this year that did it, or will it be $3 million out of Ted’s billions?

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

You said that expiring contracts are valuable

but aren’t allowing for the fact that Hinrich will be an expiring contract in 12 months.

Yes, OKC gave up a lot more for #11. They gave up 2 #1 picks (about $3M in cap space) and took on MoPete ($6.6M in cap space). So the cap space is about even in year 1.

So, 12 months from now, the Wizards will have Seraphin, an $8M expiring contract and will have given up no assets. If you allow yourself to look at the value of the deal 12 months out, you have an entirely new perspective.

And that’s if Hinrich contributes nothing.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Market Value

is, mostly, BS. Cap space and late 1st round picks are not as valuable as you are making them out to be.

Picking winning basketball players is all that matters and if Seraphin and Hinrich accomplish that, it’s a great trade.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

There's no way to argue with someone

who thinks that market value is BS. Care to sell me a house for $1? You get a whole dollar!!!

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Market Value is subjective

for any one player in a salary cap sitiuaton. So, Arenas contract by itself is bad, but with Wall locked up at ~$5M year, the combined $22M-$25M value is what you look at.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

This gets peddled a lot

It’s possible they’ll trade him again, but acquiring someone with the purpose of later flipping them rarely results in them having more value. That’s the logic the Timberwolves used when getting Sessions last summer, for example.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2010 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree

but it has happen before…for example, if he becomes an ill fit his first year (for whatever reason), another team looking to clear salary space may trade for his contract

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not saying it won't happen

It might. But it isn’t something to be counted on by any means.

Besides, when you trade expirings, you’ll usually do it in order to get a better player on a longer-term contract. I’m not sure we can count on being at the right stage of franchise building to make that kind of move in 2011.

(Also, it only adds more long-term salary, and then it of course revisits the “that’ll be an expiring contract in X years” discussion).

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Let's see

The team could trade for a one-year, $17M player and #17 pick two years in a row, and it would cost $17M in cap space two years in a row.

The team could trade for a two-year, $17M player and #17 pick two years in a row, too. The cap space hit is (using your average) $8.5M the first season, and $17M the second season – at which point the team has 2 players and 2 #17 picks.

(Obviously the two #17 picks cost the same under each scenario.)

What the team has lost out on is the chance to pick up one one-year $17M player in year 2. Can’t say I’m all that concerned about it. There are only a couple of $17M players out there I’d expect to be available and would want to add to the team – and I think it’s as likely those teams would want a player or two back as straight cap space.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, to be fair to Palace here

There is a chance that what the Wizards really end up losing is not the chance to pick up one one-year, $17 million guy, but rather a chance to pick up a one-year, $8 million guy for the 17th pick, then a second one-year, $8 million guy for another draft pick. Under that scenario, the team gets two picks, not just the 17th.

The Wizards can remedy that issue by renouncing Thornton/Young/Yi, but now they have to, whereas pre-Hinrich, they didn’t. I don’t think that’s a big deal, but it is technically true.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2010 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

That was a pretty flip reply

And I apologize for that. It wasn’t a factually accurate reply, it was just a reaction to the constant “$17M in capspace” statements. I get that Palace would prefer a $17M hit in one season – given he has apparently little regard for Kirk the player. If that’s the case, the argument is based on it being a 2 year deal with an $8M cap hit the second year, and not on the Hinrich/Seraphin trade being a $17M cap hit.

IMO, that’s incredibly misleading. The custom is to talk in terms of cap hits on a season-by-season basis – which makes sense, given that is how the cap is calculated. This makes it sound like Kirk is either due $17M this season or next season, not split over the two. If the concern is how the cap hit in season 2 impacts the ability to make trades, we don’t even need to worry about the $9M this season.

And we can always buy picks. Who’s coming next season that we’re so worked up about anyway?

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hinrich can be flipped for another pick as well

If AJ with 2 years and 30 million can net us a late first rounder than so can Hinrich IMO. Or it is atleast as likely as us losing out on another pick becuase of Hinrichs pick.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

almost twice as good?

I think not. Especially since KH can play 2 positions and is a solid defender. AJ was victimized in the playoffs by Glen Davis. Hinrich averaged 12-4-4 and AJ 15-7 in the playoffs. Not sure he is worth the extra 13M, especially considering the difference is doubled.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Personally I think alot of that had to do with PHO demanding Hickson

and us not. But who knows. I still feel KH has as much chance of netting us an asset the next 2 years as he does of preventing us from acquiring an asset.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

You're probably right

I guess we’ll see – but I do think Jamison has a much stronger reputation on the trade market than a guy whose former team dumped him AND a draft pick for nothing.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

seems off to me

to say the bulls gave up hinrich for nothing. a shot at lebron was apparently pretty valuable to the bulls at the time.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I guess nothing was the wrong word

However, I do think the stigma of “he was traded for cap space” will resonate.

by Mike Prada on Jul 29, 2010 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure if I'm fulling understanding

So I’ll tweak the hypothetical a little bit.

Team 1 trades for the #17 and # 18 picks and two players, both who make $8.5 million over the next two years.

Team 2 trades for the #17 pick and one player who makes $16.5 million over one year and one player who makes $500,000 over one year.

Did Team 1 do better than Team 2 because it got two picks for the same first year cap space? Of course not because Team 2 can take on an additional $17 million the next year to get another #17 or #18. The two trades are identical in value.

Saying that we got the #17 for $8.5million is misleading because it ignores the opportunity cost. The only way to compare trades is to quote the total cap cost.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

But you are consistently throwing it out as an unqualified statement

Referring to the trade as $9M + $8M is accurate and clear. Everyone can see that the total cap cost is $17M, but also that this is not the single year cap hit. Referring to it as $17M over two years is pretty close in accuracy – you may not know the exact cap hit in the second season, but at least you know the total cost over total years.

I’m not objecting to your right to argue that $17M in one year is preferable to $17M over two years, which is essentially what you’ve been doing here. That doesn’t mean that calling it a $17M cap hit without qualification is accurate. It’s customary to deal with cap space issues on a year-by-year basis, so when you just say $17M the implication is a one-year cap hit.

Bottom line – $17M over one year is inherently different than $17M over two years. In the NBA there are obviously times a team would be better off to have a massive short term deal on the books over a longer deal. But it’s still misleading to compare them without including the years.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

I see the issue

but when you compare the two hypotheticals, doesn’t it make more sense to say that Team 1 traded $17mil in cap space for the #17 pick and Team 2 traded $17 mil in cap space for the #17 pick. Then it is easier to see that the deals are equivalent.

I don’t mean to mislead anyone into thinking that it is a one year deal.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

I see your whole argument as going to their not being equivalent

I mean, you’re essentially saying that this deal is worse than a hypothetical one year deal. That issue is going to come down to what you think Kirk adds to the team, and we already know we disagree there.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm saying they are equivalent

In both cases the teams gave up $17mil per year and got the same two draft picks back.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

But then you're ignoring the second year of the deals acquired by team 1

Only now we’ve completely left the Kirk/Seraphin deal, which does not cost $17M in either year. I haven’t seen anyone say the deal wouldn’t be better if Kirk had a single year at $9M left, but the cap hit is still $9M + $8M, not $17M.

I get that you’d prefer to have no cap hit in year 2. I get you don’t care much for Hinirch. Simplifying the description of the deal as $17M for the #17 pick drastically overstates things as a horrible move by the Wizards.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not ignoring anything

Imagine the Hinrich deal. Now imagine the Wizards did the exact same deal a second time.

Compare that to a team that trades for two one-year contracts totaling $17 mil. Then repeats that next summer.

Both deals acquire two players in the first year for $17 million. Both deals acquire two players for $17 million in the second year. They are equivalent.

If the two hypos are equivalent, then half of each hypo is equivalent. Therefore the Hinrich deal is equivalent to a one-year deal for $17 million. I’ve belabored this point enough.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

You're also judging this is a vaccum

because without taking on Hinrich’s contract, we end up having to sign a backup PG. The going rate for Luke Ridnour/Steve Blake is 4 year/$16M.

So more years, same amount of money, not as good a player.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is itself a damning criticism

The Hinrich trade can fairly be compared to the Knicks-Rockets trade because we were in a position to trade with the Knicks (we had already given up on the season and were planning for the future at that time). Simply because we ran out of opportunities doesn’t make the trade more palatable, it just shifts the blame on Grunfeld to February.

In my view, the Wizards had a bunch of cap space to burn this year — of which they couldn’t use some usefully. So the $9M they used of this year’s cap to get the 17th pick has essentially zero opportunity cost, because the team ran out of opportunities.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ach
In my view, the Wizards had a bunch of cap space to burn this year — of which they couldn’t use some usefully. So the $9M they used of this year’s cap to get the 17th pick has essentially zero opportunity cost, because the team ran out of opportunities.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

what's wrong with that?

seems overly optimistic to assume that we could have used every last dollar of our cap space, or to demand absolutely that we should have. (this year or next)

we couldn’t have acquired every draft pick every team wanted to trade, as there are other teams in the market also trying to acquire picks. so we weren’t going to use up all our cap space this year, or next, doing that strategy.

maybe, in theory, we could have acquired stojakovic for the 11th pick and then had more cap room next summer, which we could have used to acquire more picks. you can make a strong argument this would have been a better move. fair enough.

but to completely shit on the idea that ernie and ted and flip did in fact look at a deal like that, but decided they liked the move for hinrich better, simply because they actually consider hinrich an asset… anyway, it’s reasonable to disagree with it, but to dismiss it by saying the market definitively shows hinrich is worthless. it’s clear to me that’s more of an opinion than anything else.

(and it’s fine, it’s a reasonable opinion, but it’s not being communicated it as such.)

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

I've said multiple times why I think that Hinrich's court value is worthless

I see no reason to repeat it in every post I make.

The reason I quoted the text is because it is an indictment of Grunfeld for not jumping into the Knicks deal. We can’t just the Hinrich deal in a vacuum. What we could have gotten for our cap space five months ago is relevant, and it’s clear that we got a lot less than we could have.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 28, 2010 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

right, again, you think hinrich is worthless

and that’s your opinion and the heart of every post you’re making. i don’t know why you keep trying to mask that behind “the market”.

it’s a mistake to think that new york trade sets the market for anything other than an uber-desperate team (chicago was not on that level) willing to make a horrible trade. so let’s just cast that one aside. (if you’re arguing ernie should have gotten in on that new york deal, yeah, i wish, no argument there.)

you could end up being right, hinrich could be another foye-like disappointment, but nothing dallas did, even nothing okc did, makes me think that ernie screwed this one up at this point in time.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

You are way, way off

The Wiz should be in the playoffs this year. For the Wiz to win 30 games, John Wall would have to be the worst #1 draft pick in recent history and Blatche would have to miss much of the season.

In the context of are we going to be 40-42 or 45-37, the Hinrich only adds to the mix.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 27, 2010 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'd be surprised if we were near .500

After the trade we went like 8-23. That projects out to 21-61 over a full season. Maybe Gil + KH + Wall = 20 wins, but I doubt it during season 1. Especially with the lack of experienced size.

by MR on Jul 27, 2010 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

20 is a lot.....

….but then again, Gil/Wall/Hinrich is just so much better than Boykins/Livingston/Ross/Young. So much better. It will all come down to defense, but I could see these Wizards being compared to last year’s Bucks

by ToughHibachi on Jul 27, 2010 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes Wall + Gil + Hinrich does equal 20 wins and

including the 16 game losing streak is not the most accurate barometer IMO.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

How many games will this team win in the SE Division?

Going 4-12 against Miami-Orlando-Atlanta-Charlotte is about the best I can imagine… That means going 37-29 against the rest of the league to be at .500…. I suppose this is do-able, but it would mean not losing a single game against the bottom feeders and pulling a few serious upsets along the way.

I say this with no disrespect to Wall-Gil-Kirk or Blatche and JaVale… but a 15-game leap over last year in the absence of a credible SF is asking an awful lot.

by khrabb on Jul 28, 2010 4:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

or more importantly a credible center

by MR on Jul 28, 2010 7:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

Best you can imagine?

I don’t see Charlotte being any better than the Wiz this season and Atlanta doesn’t scare me.

SE Divison challenges aside, adding Wall/Gil/Hinrich alone on paper suggests a 20 game improvement.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

I still don't like this trade

OKC has shown how you build through the draft. You do it with lottery picks. They started with a #2 (Durant) and #5 (Greene) and the next year I believe Westbrook was top 10 pick and following year with Harden who was a #4 pick (which I’m still not sure about). And after making the playoffs this past year, they were able to get into the lottery again. It seems to me that EG is making the same mistake that Cleveland made with LeBrone by not getting him another high lottery pick to run with. I like Gil being there, however, Wall needs someone who he can play and grow with. Not a $17 million back-up point guard, not a French project at 17 and not an undersized PF at 23.

EG needed to get another lottery pick and he failed. Now he’s trying to put lipstick on a pig by tell us this guy Kirk is just want we need or by saying he was able to trade for another high lottery pick. BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Kryp on Jul 27, 2010 4:57 PM EDT reply actions  

Blatche and McGee

are both young talents who could have been top 5 picks in any draft they came out.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 27, 2010 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

uh

how ’bout the drafts they did come out in?

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

This seems to be silly semantics

The reason you lose on purpose is to get high lottery picks. The reason to want high lottery picks is to get high caliber players.

So the fact that we got high caliber players with later draft picks is a bad thing? Or it makes them less of a high caliber player?

I have no idea what your point is other than that the offseason “fantasy GMing” around here has jumped the shark.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Calling Blatche and Mcgee high caliber players

makes you sound like a real big Homer. Lets see if Blatche can produce for a whole season and Mcgee actually learns some sound defense principals first.

by ccrun1800 on Jul 28, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

You are correct

I should have said potentially high caliber players, which is what all lottery picks are. And that’s what Jeff Green and James Harden, 2 of OKC referenced building blocks, remain.

We’re contrasting the Grunfeld plan with the Presti plan, are we not?

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

In my eyes....No

Presti got hired when the Sonics were trying to escape Seattle. He then moved to OKC where they were just happy to have an NBA team. So he took advantage of that stunk it up big time and piled up the picks and assets.

EG does not have that luxury. Not only does he have a fanbase that is sick of losing but he has to win back alot of fans who were turned off by the way the big three blew apart. Couple in the fact that he is limited in his ability to play with the cap due to GA’s contract and I feel like our rebuilding effort differs greatly from the one Sam Presti pulled off in OKC.

If anything we should look at teams who rebuilt around an established star ( albeit ours is a little tarnished ) than a team who started from stratch.

by ccrun1800 on Jul 28, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hold up

I agree with you, but I’m talking about this particular thread which directly compared what we are doing with how OKC did it.

And the point is that the Durant/Green/Harden/Westbrook core isn’t any better than Wall/Gil/Blatche/McGee core. We did the rebuilding without requiring anymore than 1 lottery pick.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ahhh...

Durant is one of the top 3 best players in the NBA…gotta disagree…

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right

and Wall is expected to end up there in a few years too. And allowing for Durant to be the best of the bunch, you could make an argument that Gil and Blatche are the next two best players.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Or

you can say the same for Jeff Green and Westbrook

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

No chance

Jeff Green is an average starting caliber player. Russell Westbrook is improving quickly but could’t hold the jock of the injured ARenas.

If Durant is the top player, Wall becomes the 2nd best, followed by Gil, the best Westbrook would end up is the 4th best player in the group. And even then, Blatche and probably McGee will end up being better than both Green and Harden, and I like Harden alot.

Point being, the Wiz young core is plenty good enough

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Lets see

which Gil shows up this year…I am optimistic…however, his liability on D still worries me…

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Fair

but the Wizards have a chance to be a dynamite defensive team as a whole. Wall/Hinrich/Booker/Blatche has the makings of a really, really tough lineup.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also

I want to see how Thorton turns out. He showed a lot of flashes, but after he injured his groin (i believe) he slowed down (also attributed to conditioning). As of now, he is our main 3 (please everyone, stop the nonsense about Yi playing 3). I hope he does well. He is 27, but that doesn’t discount him from improving. He showed good D last year (i still remember when he guarded melo one on one the first time). He is also pretty good on offense. His issue (like NY) is b.ball IQ. I am interested to see how he pans out.

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not a huge fan

of Thornton. Agree that NY1 and he suffer from low BBIQ, but both proved they can score and D up.

However, I’m still convinced that Yi can play the 3. We’ll see.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think

Yi has bust written all over him

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Maybe

I’m not optimistic, but I think he’s worth a flier. I’m curious to see how he looks spacing the floor for Wall.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

And,

we can use a traditional big men…There should be some bargain bin ones available (or just bring back singleton plz)…McGee as talented as he is can be a liability against big men.

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Westbrook has been good

I’m still not sold on Green – I’m not sure how much of it is him and how much is role available on that team and duplication of strengths.

by wjb1492 on Jul 28, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Uh
And the point is that the Durant/Green/Harden/Westbrook core isn’t any better than Wall/Gil/Blatche/McGee core.

No.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I will walk out on a limb here

and say you are safe in that prediction.

by ccrun1800 on Jul 28, 2010 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's not apples to apples

Apples-to-apples is the Wizards in 2011-2012 or the season after that. Year 2 or 3 of “the new plan”. And I very much expect the Wiz to be a 50 win team by 2011-12.

Quite frankly, we have the “big” prospects that the Thunder will have to overpay for. Other than Ibaka, they’ve got nothing in the post (they may get rid of Mullins). That will make it easy for the Wiz to catch up to OKC in the rebuilding process.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

I guess that's true

But the Thunder have Green, Aldrich and Ibaka. They have bigs.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Green is not a big

and Aldrich/Ibaka isn’t close to as deireable as McGee/Blatche/Seraphin.

Back to the original point, take Durant away from OKC and Wall away from the Wiz and the Wiz franchise is in much, much better shape.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

I cannot agree with you on this
Back to the original point, take Durant away from OKC and Wall away from the Wiz and the Wiz franchise is in much, much better shape.

And since I’m sure you’ll argue the point anyway, I’ll just let it go.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2010 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

the poster who supports the OKC model

would reply that we could have had blatche, mcgee, and wall on our roster and a couple MORE lottery picks on top of that.

like ccrun said, you’re way overvaluing mcgee and blatche right now, but i simply hope you turn out to be right.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not saying they've arrived

but they are well on their way. Blatche is 23 and McGee is 22. What NBA big men AT THAT AGE are about equal or have more upside?

Al Horford
Kevin Love
Demarcus Cousins
Brook Lopez (who McGee looked every bit as good as last week)

that’s probably the end of the list.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

How old is Noah?

I guess he’s a bit older.

Guys in that range include Hickson, Favors, Anthony Randolph, Blake Griffin, Bynum, Marc Gasol (don’t remember his age offhand) and Robin Lopez, off the top of my head.

I’m optimistic about Dray and JaVale, but you have to realize that fans of the Cavaliers, Nets, Knicks, Clippers, Lakers, Grizzlies, Suns, Timberwolves and Hawks are saying pretty much the same thing you are about their bigs.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'd add Bynum and Griffin

but Marc Gasol is 25 (reinforcing my point, 25 seems to be the usual breakout age for bigs). Anthony Randolph, maybe. Not Hickson, Favors or Robin Lopez.

It’s still a pretty short list, and very few teams count more than 1 of them.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

i love that you are now completely writing off

the #3 pick in this year’s draft. you have some amazing viewpoints!

by DarrellWalkerFan on Jul 28, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Where did I "write him off"?

I said he did not belong on a list of top up and coming NBA big men. Favors looked overmatched in NBA summer league, the same level of play where McGee looked like a man amongst boys. So I have no problem leaving him off the list at this point.

by JonathanJoseph on Jul 28, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Word on the street is that Gee is most likely to be cut by the Spurs

So evryone’s favorite player might be available. Of course if he would still rather sit in a suit for a playoff team than play sig. minutes for a lesser team it won’t matter.

by BayAreaBullet on Jul 27, 2010 5:45 PM EDT reply actions  

That would be awesome if true

unfortunately, Grunfeld would likely just allow himself to get outbid by a guaranteed $10,000.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Jul 27, 2010 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Can it be?

Have the Gods given Ernie a chance to rectify his incredibly stupid decision to let Gee go?

by satchmore on Jul 27, 2010 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Could it be?

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN RISES

Part of Pech's Posse since 2007.

by OleksiyPecherovsHomeboy on Jul 28, 2010 1:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

“Incredibly stupid decision” is a bit much.

The Wizards didn’t offer the world to Gee, so Gee shunned the Wizards by choosing a modest offer from the Spurs instead of a modest offer from the Wizards. Apparently now the Spurs don’t think he deserves a roster spot.

Now does Gee come crawling back to the team that gave him his first real opportunity to prove himself as a NBA player? Will Grunfeld even be willing to welcome this guy back?

Before everyone gets too excited, this is still a guy who said “no thanks” to our team in the first place.

by Johnnie Futbol on Jul 28, 2010 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Don't need 'em both...

So, as in all romances: Do you go back to the one who left you for another without blinking an eye, or stay with the one who has been loyal to you all along?

Of course basketball may be a bit different… In this case, Gee (a) would be likely to cost more and (b) is expecting a shot at being high up in the rotation (if not the actual starter at SF on the present roster). Martin’s expectations are lower.

Since I think we can (and will probably want to) do better than Gee at the 3 in the long run, I think Martin is the wiser choice.

Look at it another way. The Spurs are not fools. They used up Roger Mason and now he is looking for work. They have signed Jefferson and Neal, and now Gee is on the discard heap.

Mike James once said that “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure” … hmmmm.

by khrabb on Jul 28, 2010 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right

And it sounds like it’s only speculation that Gee is going to get cut. He probably will be invited to the Spurs training camp. In the likelihood that he eventually does get cut, it’ll probably happen closer to the start of the season, and I certainly would rather have Martin if he spends training camp and preseason with the Wizards.

by Johnnie Futbol on Jul 28, 2010 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good Trade EG!

Now gamble that JHo’s knees stay sound and resign him

Rod Langway magically teaches Mike Green how to clear and check the opposition from his own defensive zone. Lets Go Caps !

by Mikko Leinonen's opposite on Jul 27, 2010 9:12 PM EDT via mobile reply actions  

It treated the season ticket holders

to a free Nationals Baseball game this evening. I had to opportunity to talk to Blatch and he said that he is looking forward to the upcoming season and his foot is doing well. It was great to see Blatch, get a free baseball ticket, and see the Nationals win a game.

Long-Time Wizard Fan

by WizardFan on Jul 27, 2010 11:56 PM EDT reply actions  

You realize

he started 50+ games last year and averaged over 30 mins a game..a sign that he is more then just a rotational player (for a playoff team)

by Meraj Chowdhury on Jul 28, 2010 2:18 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Washington Wizards.
Start posting about the Wizards »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Carmelo Anthony in a Wizards Uniform
Small
Peter John Ramos
Small
4 Team Trade
610x_small
Trade for J. Crawford?
Small
Expectations
Small
Francisco Elson backup center?
Small
Why the Heat Won't Win
Small
Only Chance We Land Melo
Small
Javale is not a good center
Roy_2007_small
Off to see the Wizards.... Carmelo Anthony???

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS

SBNation.com Recent Stories

NEW YORK CITY NY - AUGUST 12:  Kevin Durant #5 looks on during the World Basketball Festival USAB Showcase at Radio City Music Hall on August 12 2010 in New York City. (Photo by Chris Trotman/Getty Images for Nike) +4 updates

FIBA World Championships 2010: Team USA Routs Iran 88-51, Clinches Top Spot In Group B

Cleveland Cavaliers' Delonte West, right, shoot over Indiana Pacers' Jeff Foster in the first half of a NBA basketball game in Indianapolis, Monday, April 13, 2009.  (AP Photo/Michael Conroy) link

Celtics Sign Free Agent Delonte West

Rose +2 updates

FIBA World Championships 2010: Team USA Ekes Out 70-68 Win Over Brazil

More from SBNation.com >


Editor in Chief

Hill_mike_small Mike Prada

Associate editors

Jakesbshot_small Jake Whitacre

248225_small Sean Fagan

Mriggs_cartoon_2__small Rook6980

Muresan_small Jon Kelman

Photo3_small CJ Hempfield

Contributors

Washington_lds_mormon_temple2_small TheSecretWeapon

Addingmachine_small bwoodsxyz

Homer_small John Park Williams